Sorry, you don't follow me. My fault.
I do not feel that certain terms are useful. I feel they do a great
deal of harm and are actually a way of avoiding thinking and discourse.
Why? Because they substitute conventional theory for your own
experience. They block thought.

I understand what is intended by a term like "genre" when it is used
informally. But when it is used in supposedly serious writing, the
result for me is almost always that the writing becomes
incomprehensible. Genre gets raised to the level of a theory; an
abstraction becomes a Platonic idea. Cavell, for example, is not
content to say that he wants to talk about films with themes of
"re-marriage." He maintains again and again that there is an actually
existing Platonic Idea, "Re-Marriage," that he has discovered it, and is
revealing it to us.

And most academics seem to me far worse. There are genre "laws." There
are conventions that are being "defied." Etc., etc., etc. This is all
utter blarney, IMHO.

I think the idea should be for academics (and for all of us) to
communicate our insights and thoughts with the maximum amount of
clarity, grace and beauty. Terms which essentially have no meaning
(like "genre") are not useful. That some people THINK they are useful
(outside of informal conversation, if there) suggests to me the degree
to which "theory" destroys and inhibits experience.

I've been waiting for someone to quote Fritz Lang on theory. Seems to
me he got it right.



Jaime N. Christley wrote:

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher <tag@s...> wrote:
>
> > Alchemy had its defendors in its day, and witch burning was
> > considered useful.
>
> Okay, let me see if I follow you.
>
> Major premise: Presently, genre and other categorical terms are
> considered by some to be useful in discussing film aesthetics,
> auteurism, etc.
>
> Minor premise: In the past, alchemy and witch burning, now seen to
> be silly and destructive, were taken seriously and considered useful.
>
> Conclusion: As we look back on genre and other categorical terms the
> way we now look back on alchemy and witch burning, we will see that
> they were (are) actually silly and destructive.
>
> I'm not sure...something seems to be missing. Can anyone help?
>